The new initiative coincides with a reworked Illinois Freedom of Information Act that gives Madigan's office binding authority to resolve records disputes, enacts civil penalties and fines for government agencies that willfully disobey, and shortens from seven to five business days the time officials have to respond to records requests.

Although many sweeping exemptions for such things as preliminary drafts, memos, and performance evaluations of public employees remain in the new law, Madigan said it will be easier for taxpayers to keep a watchful eye on their governments.

"Our goal is to ensure transparency at all levels of government and, as a result, to establish a new standard of accountability and openness in conducting the people's business," Madigan said in a news release.

The new provisions that give Madigan's office broad authority to force government agencies to turn over public records were enacted in the wake of the arrest and impeachment of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich on corruption charges.

Madigan more than doubled the staff and budget of the Public Access Counselor from $260,800 and three lawyers to $600,270 and six lawyers.

She also appointed one of her top deputies, Cara Smith, to head the office. Smith was formerly the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Communications and spearheaded the effort last year to hammer out a compromise on the records bill among various interest groups.

08/17/2009

Gov. Pat Quinn today signed into law an overhaul of the state's public records act, which supporters say will make it easier for the public to keep track of government operations.

Quinn was joined by Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan, who pushed for the law that gives her office new powers. Despite praise from Madigan and Quinn, however, the changes to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act do not effect numerous exemptions that are often used to deny records.

"I think in particular the events of the last year underline the importance of openness in government in Illinois," Quinn said, referencing the arrest, impeachment and ouster of predecessor Rod Blagojevich. "Today we are putting more sunlight on the government of Illinois."

Quinn's signature came after weeks of lobbying by supporters and critics alike. The Illinois State's Attorneys Association sent Quinn a letter asking that he use his amendatory veto power to rewrite the bill and remove provisions they said could result in the improper release of victim and informant information. But the Illinois Press Association, which represents many of the state's newspapers, urged Quinn to sign the measure, saying it was a welcome improvement.

The new law would give Madigan's office sweeping new powers to interpret what records are public and settle records disputes. It would shorten somewhat the time government has to respond to record requests, establish civil fines for violators, and force public agencies to pay for attorneys fees on both sides if they lose in court.

But there is still broad language that leaves open the door to oft-abused exemptions for requests that are "unduly burdensome" and "a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

Also intact is another exemption that allows public officials to keep secret "preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations memoranda and other records in which opinions are expressed, or policies or actions are formulated." The exemption has come under fire from critics who say these are the records most needed by citizens to question and evaluate the actions of their public servants.

Public agencies -- other than the legislature -- must notify the attorney general's office for approval whenever they want to assert the privacy-and-draft exemptions.

Under the records bill, released in the waning hours of this year’s session, Attorney General Lisa Madigan would gain sweeping new powers to define a public record and settle records disputes.

The Tribune has outlined the strengths and weaknesses of the new bill, but it is important to know that many of the sweeping exemptions used to keep records secret are intact. The newspaper has also outlined what it thinks should be in the open records measure.

The University of Illinois has refused a request by the Chicago Tribune for test scores and grade-point averages of applicants who appeared on its admissions clout lists, saying the release would violate privacy rights even if the students are not named.

The Tribune plans to legally challenge the university's decision, said Editor Gerould Kern.

In response to a Tribune request under the Freedom of Information Act for documents related to U. of I. admissions, the university turned over about 1,800 pages, some of which were heavily redacted. The records led to a series of stories chronicling how some unqualified students were admitted only after inquiries from lawmakers and university trustees.

The Tribune appealed the decision to hide ACT scores and grade-point averages, arguing that the public had a right to know about the role of powerful patrons in the admissions process. The Tribune did not ask for the students' names.

05/05/2009

Let's talk about why adopted individuals cannot obtain a copy of their original birth certificates in Illinois.

When a natural parent relinquishes their parental rights, whether voluntarily or by court order, they relinquish ALL rights to the child, including the right to determine that child's identity. But when an adopted adult (yes, Virginia, we do become adults) seeks to obtain the official public record of his birth, he is denied access because Illinois claims that birth parents have been guranteed confidentiality.

I have been involved in adoption reform for 30 years. I have yet to meet a birth parent who was promised confidentiality. The voluntary termination paperwork does not guarantee anything of the sort for a very good reason. There is no guarantee that a relinquished child will be adopted. If that is the case, the child will grow up with the name he was given at birth. Only if he is adopted is his name changed and his birth records sealed.

Even in that case, confidentiality does not equate with anonymity.

The state, influenced by persons who work in the adoption industry -- a multi-billion dollar industry that operates largely without regulation -- have set up an elaboriate search & reunionoperation which pays its top operatives 100K/year to search for birth relatives. Adoptees who wish information pay for this in part. But this is not what adoptees want.

All we ask for is our original birth certificates. We are not all interested in search and reunion. And if we are, we are perfectly capable of doing that on our own. We are also perfectly capable of respecting the wishes of birth relatives not to establish or maintain contact.

Although, I commend the Tribune for its efforts to shine the sun on Illinois records, it saddens me to say that policy makers at the Trib have NOT been on the side of adoptees who seek only to have information about their own identity. I'd like to see the editorial board come down on our side for a change.

I experienced the following. All had receptionists that pleasantly took my message and each provided me their boss' email contact except Mike Madigan ("Doesn't have email." and Cullerton gets his email through his secretary, Justine). Got tel. #s from the Tribune's list of IL elected officials - that was OK. But, the list did not include their emails had to get from the receptionists - except for Mike Madigan who doesn't have email(??). Hey Trib, be nice to include these officials' email in your listing. ... Normie

I'm trying to understand why the state legislature modified the statute requiring emissions testing. Beginning on Feb 1, 2007, only passenger cars of model year 1996 and newer which have onboard diagnostics are to undergo emissions testing and only use the computer diagnostic, not the tailpipe and gas cap testing. Older cars, those which pollute more, are no longer tested under this system. This happened about the same time the state began the process to outlaw all indoor public smoking in the name of preserving public health. I suspect the legislature, wanting to save money, modified the law and effectively increased the risk to the public health. I'd like to understand the legislative history and reveiw the studies and reports that justified this legislation (if any).

As a trustee and beneficiary of two life insurance trusts, I never received any statements and was not notified when the trust had "expired" and the other trust was cancelled. The donor was a family member that recently passed. I beleive that his wife had a personal relationship with the broker and may have subverted the system so she could collect all the money. I also believe that the trusts were changed after my family member developed Alzheimer's disease. Who can I contact to get this broker investigated?

THEY'RE OUR RECORDS -- LET'S ASK FOR THEM

Seeking documents? Whether you're just starting out or getting stonewalled, send your question or problem to Tribune experts and we'll help when we can. Then join the discussion on the blog and tell us about your efforts as we highlight battles to pry loose government records.
 Archives
 Tips and strategy
 Database
 Find and contact your lawmakers

Legal disclaimer:

The materials on this site are intended to help citizens in their quest for public records and are for informational purposes only. The comments by Tribune reporters are not intended as and should not be considered legal advice. Although we endeavor to provide information that is accurate and useful, we recommend that you seek the services of a competent, independent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction to the extent you require legal advice.